The paper ‘Field application of rice straw–sewage sludge compost in Mediterranean citrus orchards: effects on soil properties, nutrient status and fruit quality ‘ by  Rodríguez-Carretero et al. deals with the use of compost obtained from rice straw and sewage sludge on citrus trees. Although the Materials and Methods section states that the experiment was conducted over two growing seasons, the manuscript actually reports two independent experiments performed in two consecutive years. This distinction has important implications for the interpretation of the results. In particular, COMP1 and COMP2 were not directly compared under the same experimental conditions, as they were applied in different growing seasons. Therefore, conclusions regarding differences between the two composts are not fully supported. Furthermore, the duration of each experiment (one growing season) is insufficient to draw robust conclusions regarding changes in soil properties, especially those related to soil organic matter and soil physicochemical characteristics, which generally require long-term investigation.

Additional comments are provided below:

• Line 107, spell out ANP
• Line 137: actually here 2 experiments are reported, 1 year-long each
• The analysis of pruning residues, rice straw and sewage sludge would help to understand the fertilization potential of composts
• Line 96, point 1 cannot be achieved, there is no comparison between COMP1 and COMP2,
• The difference between the two composts clearly depends on the proportion of sewage sludge (line 107)
• Line 98, point 2 is quite ambiguous since non comparison between the 2 compost were carried out
• Were COMP1 and COMP2 applied to the same soils or on different plots
• Line 200, The compost pH appears relatively low. Was the sewage sludge treated with gypsum? This hypothesis may be supported by the increase in soil Ca reported in line 269. Please clarify the source of Ca.
• Line 204 spell out OOC
• In table, when ANOVA is not significant, no mean separation is required
• Line 247: What is meant by “optimal” soil organic matter content? Please provide a reference range and clarify whether this statement refers to agronomic recommendations.
• Line 250: OM decreased in the 2 seasons, how do you explain it?
• Table 6 different font
• No comparison between COMP1 and COMP2 can be made (line 326-328)
• Comparison of chemical analysis between COMP1 and COMP2 (line 334) are adventurous since only 4 replications were used
• Line 347, 2 years of compost application are unlikely to be sufficient to produce soil physicochemical changes, Such effects generally require long-term study
• Line 385-386: I suggest that the Authors estimate the amount of C applied through compost relative to the total soil C pool. Without such information, the reported increase appears difficult to reconcile with the amount of compost applied and may reflect analytical variability rather than a true treatment effect.
• Since compost was not tilled into the soil, this reduces the effect on soil physical characteristics

The manuscript is generally well organised and presents relevant results regarding soil fertility and nutrient dynamics after compost application. However, some aspects related to experimental design, statistical interpretation, and discussion of the results should be clarified or interpreted more cautiously before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Specific comments

• Lines 92–99: The hypotheses and objectives should be reformulated more carefully. Since COMP1 and COMP2 were applied in different growing seasons, direct comparisons between both composts should be interpreted cautiously.
• Section 2.2.1 (Lines 130–143): Although the manuscript refers to “two consecutive seasons”, the experiments differed between seasons regarding compost type and fertilisation management. This limitation should be acknowledged more explicitly.
• Lines 139–142: The reduction in P fertilisation during S2 introduces an additional management factor that may influence comparisons between seasons.
• Section 2.2.5: The statistical approach should be described in greater detail. It would be useful to clarify more explicitly whether the seasons were analysed independently.
• Lines 247–250: The decrease in soil organic matter between seasons deserves additional discussion. Climatic conditions, mineralisation rates, irrigation management, or sampling variability could have contributed to this behaviour.
• Lines 265–278 and Figure 1: Several soil parameters showed statistically significant differences; however, the agronomic relevance of some changes should be discussed more carefully.
• Lines 288–290 and Figure 2: The microbial and dehydrogenase activity results are interesting, but these parameters are naturally variable and strongly affected by environmental conditions. This should be acknowledged more explicitly.
• Lines 318–321: Since compost application did not significantly affect yield or most fruit quality parameters, the conclusions should better reflect that the main observed effects were related to soil properties.
• Lines 323–341: The discussion comparing COMP1 and COMP2 should be moderated because both composts were not evaluated simultaneously under identical field conditions.
• The discussion would benefit from a more explicit consideration of the limitations associated with extrapolating these results to drip-irrigated Mediterranean citrus orchards, since the study was conducted under flood irrigation conditions.

Technical comments

• Line 53: Spell out “ANP” at first mention.
• Lines 116 and 165: Spell out “OOC” at first mention.
• Table 6 formatting should be revised for consistency.
• Some sentences in the Discussion section could be simplified to improve readability.

After carefully reading the manuscript, I consider that it addresses an important topic for Mediterranean citrus production and soil management. The objectives are clearly defined, the experimental approach is appropriate, and the results are presented in a clear and logical manner. The discussion adequately relates the findings to previous research, and the conclusions are consistent with the evidence provided.

Overall, I found the manuscript to be scientifically rigorous and suitable for publication. In my opinion, no additional scientific revisions are required, and the manuscript can be accepted in its current form. Any remaining changes, if considered necessary, would be limited to minor editorial aspects.